Thursday, January 24, 2013

West Point Defines "Domestic Enemies" to Prepare Troops to Take On Americans

Soldiers and police in America take an oath to defend the Constitution
against all enemies foreign and domestic. But knowing who is a domestic
enemy of the Constitution can be confusing to a young grunt. So a West
Point think tank decided to broadly define what a domestic enemy may
look like to ensure soldiers follow orders when the time comes.

In the study, what Perliger defines as the “Far-Right” is actually a
mixture of race hate groups with ordinary militias, anti-abortion
activists, Libertarians/Anarchists, and “conspiracy theorists.” Perliger
suggets that this “Far-Right” contingent is glued together by an
identification with an “anti-federalist” ideology as well as a belief in
a “New World Order.”
According to Perliger, these groups are concerned with the “corrupted
and tyrannical nature of the federal government and its apparent
tendency to violate individuals’ civilian liberties and constitutional
rights.”

Perliger, who is the director of terrorism studies
at the West Point Combating Terrorism Center writes in the Introduction
to the study that its purpose is to provide “a conceptual foundation
for understanding different far-right groups and then presents the
empirical analysis of violent incidents to identify those perpetrating
attacks and their associated trends.”

Ruppert continues by stating, “If those aren’t violations of
individuals’ civil liberties and constitutional rights, I don’t know
what is.”

Yet, while Perliger defines three different branches of the “far-right” –
racist/white supremacy movement, anti-federalist movement, and
fundamentalist movement – the author lumps the three different branches
into one, all while conveniently ignoring pertinent facts that might not
back up his claims.

Perliger’s paper notably lacks mention of the fact that a great many “racist/white supremacy” organizations are themselves either partially or even entirely staffed by law enforcement
agents of government intelligence. Likewise, Perliger entirely
conflates race-based movements (also likely infiltrated and controlled
by government agencies) with what he labels the “Christian
Fundamentalist” movement. This, as Madison Ruppert points out, is
described with a complete lack of understanding (intentional or
otherwise) as to what “fundamentalism” actually is.

Yet,
the “anti-federalist” movement (itself a variety of movements mixed
together to provide an easier category for Perliger and his readers), is
the most interesting when evaluating the West Point paper. According to
Perliger, this “movement” is centered around a belief in a “New World
Order,” and the recognition of the “corrupted and tyrannical nature of
the federal government and its apparent tendency to violate individuals’
civilian liberties and constitutional rights.”

In this regard, Perliger writes,

The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs
that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by
external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in
which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or
another version of global government. They also espouse strong
convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt
and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’
civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism,
individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the
anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal
government and its proxies in law enforcement.

In further summarizing the “anti-federalist” viewpoint, Perliger writes,

The anti-federalist movement’s ideology is based on the idea that there
is an urgent need to undermine the influence, legitimacy and practical
sovereignty of the federal government and its proxy organizations. The
groups comprising the movement suggest several rationales that seek to
legitimize anti-federal sentiments. Some groups are driven by a strong
conviction that the American political system and its proxies were
hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order,”
(NWO) in which the United States will be embedded in the UN or another
version of global government. The NWO will be advanced, they believe,
via steady transition of powers from local to federal law-enforcement
agencies, i.e., the transformation of local police and law-enforcement
agencies into a federally controlled “National Police” agency that will
in turn merge with a “Multi-National Peace Keeping Force.” The latter
deployment on US soil will be justified via a domestic campaign
implemented by interested parties that will emphasize American society’s
deficiencies and US government incompetency. This will convince the
American people that restoring stability and order inevitably demands
the use of international forces. The last stage, according to most NWO
narratives, involves the transformation of the United States government
into an international/world government and the execution and oppression
of those opposing this process.

Indeed, anyone even faintly aware of historical and current events would
be hard-pressed to argue with the so-called “anti-federalists” in their
analysis.

Regardless, in light of the recent push for citizen disarmament, the paper tellingly states,

Linda Thompson, the head of the Unorganized Militia of the United States
details the consequence of this global coup: ”This is the coming of the
New World Order. A one-world government, where, in order to put the new
government in place, we must all be disarmed first. To do that, the
government is deliberately creating schisms in our society, funding both
the anti-abortion/pro-choice sides, the antigun/pro-gun issues…trying
to provoke a riot that will allow martial law to be implemented and all
weapons seized, while ‘dissidents’ are put safely away”. The fear of the
materialization of the NWO makes most militias not merely hostile
towards the federal government but also hostile towards international
organizations, whether non-profitable NGOs, international corporations,
or political institutions of the international community, such as the
UN.

Perliger, of course, does not attempt to challenge any of Thompson's
claims as they are presented in this short quotation nor does he attempt
to debunk any of the claims made by the “anti-federalist” communities
that he so concisely repeats in the statement above. While, admittedly,
it is not a stated goal of the author’s study to defend his position and
debunk those of his subjects, one would also be justified in concluding
that Perliger does not attempt to defend his case simply because
disproving the claims made by the “anti-federalist” activists as he
presents them would impossible for him to do in a convincing manner.

Yet
the purpose of the paper is not to provide legitimate information about
these groups as much as it is to terrify the reader – West Point and
other military trainees – into believing that anyone who rightly
supposes that their government is overstepping its bounds, violating
their rights, or moving forward in otherwise unconstitutional directions
is a conspiracy-obsessed, right-wing, racist fanatic who is intent on
killing military, police, and minorities.

Unfortunately for the author, however, a careful reading of his own argument causes it to fall apart at the seams.

After postulating numerous reasons for the alleged violence of
“far-right” groups ranging from political, socio-economic, geographical,
and operational possibilities, Perliger attempts to turn to the actual
numbers.

At first, Perliger’s presentation of thousands of violent attacks per
year (using 2010 statistics) is quite shocking since such attacks are
not known to the general public and the mainstream media has not seized
upon them at every available opportunity as one would expect. The actual
level of violence in its own right, whether reported or not, would be
concerning to say the very least.

These numbers would be an even more concerning situation if they demonstrated that such attacks were on the rise.

Unfortunately for the government argument, however, this is not the case
as even Perliger has to admit when he says, “Hence, in periods during
which many streams of terrorism have shown improvement in their
operational capabilities and, as a result, an increase in their tendency
to engage in mass casualty attacks, the violent American far right
shows stagnation, at least in terms of its ability to enhance the harm
it generates.”

For instance, while the term “right-wing violent attack” might conjure
images of lynchings, executions, or mass terror attacks, the statistics,
even those presented by Perliger, tend to show a different reality.
Indeed, the type of “attack” referenced in Perliger’s study is entirely
unclear in terms of just what would constitute a “right-wing violent
attack.”

Indeed,
when examining Perliger’s statistics, one can easily see that well over
half of the “attacks” being described are actually proxy “attacks”
(loosely defined term) against property, “foiled attacks” (which are
wildly undefined, especially since the overwhelming majority of any
foiled terrorist attack in the United States has been directed by the FBI), “heavy damage to property,” and “cross burnings.”

Likewise, with so many acts of property damage and racial symbols being later determined to have been directed by the “victims” themselves, one must also call these numbers into question since they are left unclear in the study.

Yet,
even among the 42% of “attacks” described as involving “specific human
targets,” the incidents are not necessarily connected with any
political, racial, or religious origin. As with any attempt at methods
of divide and conquer, there is the very real possibility that any
violent attack leveled against any individual of minority status or
non-right-wing political ideology is thus considered to be a “specific
human target” attack. Under such loosely defined rules of
categorization, since the incidence of “specific human targets” were
overwhelmingly one on one or (at most) two on one altercations, a simple
shoving match between two individuals in which one could be remotely
considered right wing, racist, or religious could then be delineated as a
violent right-wing attack.

Since Perliger easily allows his own political bias to appear during the
course of the paper and, since much of his political theory is based
upon Israeli political scientist Ehud Sprinzak’s Iceberg model of the
structure of political movements, it is apparent that Perliger’s own
methodology is likely devised in a manner that would allow even the most
distant and unrelated events seem directly related to the core of
political ideology Perliger has set in his sites.

Such a concern is only compounded by the fact that one of Perliger’s
main sources for his paper is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a
notorious race-baiting organization that routinely accuses anyone who
disagrees with the company line in regards to government policy as
racist and potentially violent and dangerous. Not far behind, of course,
is the citation of the Anti-Defamation League, an organization of
similar race-based incredibility.

In the end, Perliger’s report is nothing more than just another cog in
the wheel of a military-industrial complex on overdrive in its attempt
to brainwash new military recruits into believing that a terrorist lurks
behind every bush. More importantly, these new recruits are being
trained that such terrorists are no longer shadowy Muslims hiding in
caves in Afghanistan, but good ol’ boys, gun owners, and average
American citizens that will eventually have to be dealt with.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He
has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author
of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville
has published over 190 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects
including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties.
Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every
Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Afraa Dagher Twitter

Syriana Afraa

Eva Bartlett

Observations from Occupied Palestine: Gaza – In Gaza

Quoth The Raven, "Veritas"

Translate

Support BrandonTurbeville.com!

Please help support the website by shopping with our Amazon link by clicking on the icon above. It will cost you nothing extra but you can still help support the site simply by clicking on the link above before adding items to your cart. Your support is much appreciated!

Free PDF: The Difference It Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President